John the Baptist, though, who should have known better, did everything wrong. Here are his errors:

Conferred priesthood on unbaptized men

Neither Joseph Smith nor Oliver Cowdery were baptized when they had the priesthood conferred on them.

Try getting your bishop to give you permission to confer the Aaronic priesthood on any unbaptized man. See if he’ll authorize it. He’ll probably say something like, “Sure, I’ll authorize it, just as soon as he’s baptized.” The principle is well established: first comes baptism, then comes priesthood. If you attempt to reverse the order, every bishop, stake president and GA will INVALIDATE the conferral.

Did not call the men by name

Both Joseph and Oliver agree that the angel merely began his conferral by stating, “Upon you my fellow servants.”

Try conferring the Aaronic priesthood upon someone and start the ordinance by saying, “Upon you my fellow servant,” without stating the person’s name and see if the bishop or other presiding elder doesn’t stop you short and tell you to do it again, as the first time was INVALIDATED by your lack of specifying who you were talking to.

Conferred priesthood upon two men at once

This appears to be the only instance of one man conferring the priesthood upon two men simultaneously. The conferral of priesthood ordinance is a uniquely personal experience. One ordinance per person, not one ordinance per two people.

The next time two young men are ready to receive the Aaronic priesthood, try conferring them both simultaneously and see how quickly the bishop stops you. If it doesn’t become instantly plain that you performed an INVALID ordinance, it will as the years go by and you are never allowed to perform another ordinance of record.

Did not state the priesthood authority

In the words of Joseph, the angel said,

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.” (See JS—H 1: 68-74)

Normally, an Aaronic priesthood holder would say something like, “…by the authority of the Aaronic priesthood which I hold” or something to that effect. According to Joseph, though, the angel didn’t state that he held this priesthood, at all. He only stated which priesthood he was conferring.

Try conferring the Aaronic priesthood without stating your authority and see if it flies. Chances are, those around you are going to tell you to perform the ordinance again because it is INVALID unless you state the authority.

Did not state what priesthood was given

If we take the words of Oliver, the angel said,

“Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!” (See JS—H Footnote)

Normally, when conferring the Aaronic priesthood, an Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood holder would state which priesthood is being conferred, Aaronic or Melchizedek, but notice that according to Oliver, the angel only stated “this Priesthood and this authority” without specifying which priesthood was being conferred.

Try conferring the Aaronic (or Melchizedek) priesthood without actually stating which priesthood you are conferring and see if you are not told to perform the ordinance again because the first attempt was INVALID.

Did not ordain to an office of the priesthood

Now, technically, you don’t have to ordain to an office of the priesthood, but it is the protocol to do so when the priesthood is conferred.

Did not close in the name of Jesus Christ

Instead, he opened in the name of Messiah. Christ is from Greek meaning “Anointed One” and Messiah is from Hebrew meaning “Anointed One,” so, since they mean the same thing, he essentially used the name of Christ, but he did not use Jesus’ first name.

Try opening prayers and ordinances with “in the name of Messiah” (and without any other closing use of the name of Jesus Christ) and see if you are not accused of performing the ordinance INVALIDLY.

Even More Unorthodox Stuff

Conferred Priesthood of Aaron upon non-descendants of Aaron

These were two Gentile men who were not descendants of Aaron. One of the peculiar things about the Aaronic priesthood is that is was only intended for Aaron’s literal descendants. The Priesthood of Aaron was not for the Levites, nor for the other tribes of Israel, only for Aaron and his sons.

Additionally, Joseph had a bodily blemish from the operation he had when an 11-year old child, which also disqualified him.

Conferred Levitical Priesthood upon non-descendants of Levi

Again, we have two Gentile men receiving Levitical priesthood, or priesthood that pertains exclusively to the tribe of Levi. Aaron and Levitical priesthood is the same, except that Aaron and sons held the offices of priest and high priest while the non-Aaronite Levites held lesser offices of that priesthood (like teachers and deacons.)

The terms Aaronic and Levitical are sometimes used synonymously (D&C 107: 1, 6, 10), although there are some specific differences in the offices existing within the Levitical Priesthood. For example, the lesser priesthood was conferred only upon men of the tribe of Levi. However, within the tribe, only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of priest. And, still further, from the firstborn of Aaron’s sons (after Aaron) was selected the high priest (or president of the priests). Thus Aaron and his sons after him had greater offices in the Levitical Priesthood than did the other Levites. (BD: Aaronic Priesthood)

A high priest of the Melchizedek priesthood can officiate in all the offices of the lesser priesthood, but neither Joseph nor Oliver were high priests of the Melchizedek priesthood when they received the Priesthood of Aaron from the angel and baptized each other (a power associated with the office of a priest of the Aaronic priesthood.)

The angel’s instructions: baptize each other

Joseph said that the angel “gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.”

This means that an unbaptized man baptized a man into the church of Christ. Today, were this to happen, the authorities of the church would INVALIDATE the baptism and would insist that the man be re-baptized by some baptized man who held at least the Aaronic priesthood. By today’s standards, then, Oliver’s baptism was INVALID.

Continuing this logic, if Oliver’s baptism was invalid, then he was still unbaptized when he baptized Joseph, which, by applying the same standards of today, would make Joseph’s baptism INVALID.

As all baptism in the church is traced to the authority obtained by Joseph and Oliver from this angel, this would mean that all church baptisms are INVALID because protocols were breached from the very beginning, starting the church off on the wrong foot from the get-go.

The correct (modern) procedure is to baptize first, then confer priesthood. Had the angel baptized one or both of the men first, then conferred the priesthood upon the one or both of them that was baptized, or instructed the one baptized and conferred to baptize and confer the other, the protocols would have remained intact.

The angel’s instructions: ordain each other

Said Joseph, “Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.”

They were instructed to ordain each other to the Aaronic Priesthood. Not to an office of the Aaronic Priesthood, but to the Aaronic Priesthood.

Another curious thing is that Joseph stated that the angel “ordained us” before they baptized each other and then commanded them to ordain each other after they baptized each other. This would make a double ordination.

INVALID any way you look at it

By modern LDS standards, the Aaronic priesthood ordinations of the non-Aaronic, non-Levite, physically blemished Gentiles, Joseph and Oliver, and their subsequent baptisms and ordinations (of each other), as well as those of all the other people who received baptism and authority to baptize from their hands, on down through the generations of the church, are all invalid.

So, was John the Baptist on dope when he was sent by Peter, James and John to confer priesthood authority on Joseph and Oliver? Certainly the above list of evidences would be typical actions of one who abused substances. Such “turning of things upside down” may bring into question whether John was even sent by Peter, James and John, as was his claim! Perhaps he was just acting alone and doing his own thing?

Even more evidence of drug use

Joseph, an eyewitness, stated, “a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light.” And Oliver, another eyewitness, stated, “the angel of God came down.” So, we know for a fact that John was high during this event.

An alternate interpretation

May I offer another interpretation that could possibly explain all the strange behavior listed above? Consider the following scripture, which speaks of John:

For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power. (D&C 84: 28)

Now, think for a moment. Who goes around trying to overthrow governments? That’s right. John the Baptist was obviously an anarchist!

1st, although he used the word “confer,” D&C 27: 8 says it was an ordination:

Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;

2nd, John was actually following proper angelic protocol for ordaining mortal men. Again, from the D&C we read,

For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power. (D&C 84: 28)

So, John was ordained by an angel at eight days old, when he was still unbaptized, then, later when he arrived at the years of accountability (being at least an 8 year old child) he was baptized. If this was the procedure done to “John the son of Zachariah,” then it follows that if he was sent by Peter, James and John to ordain mortal Joseph and Oliver, as an angelic being, he would have followed the protocol that the angel used with him when he was a child: ordination first, baptism second.

An email from a yahoo! group I belong to was sent out a couple of weeks ago on this topic. I have not personally verified if the following is correct, though I have no reason to doubt the source who wrote it:

=========================================

And as a sidenote – please be aware that D&C 84:28 was “corrected” by Oliver Cowdery … to say that John was baptized in “his childhood”.

The original revelation to the Prophet Joseph stated that John was baptized while he was yet in “the Womb”. This would also verify why John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

Also please note that John was ordained by an angel of God at the time he was 8 days old UNTO this “POWER”.

There is no reference in the scriptures, that I know of, where an angel of the Lord physically baptized a person. So, how was Joseph Smith supposed to get baptized if there was no authority on earth to baptize him? He first received the authority, and then performed the ordinances. So the real question for me, is why do baptisms have to be done in the flesh by all party members? Which is what this incident suggests. After all, it would be much easier to do baptisms for the dead if only words needed to be said, because a physical body didn’t need to be there for proxy.

I’d like to know why the three Nephite apostles don’t count as “authority” in people’s minds.

“And [Jesus] said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.
Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.
And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.
And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.”

Sounds like there were three authorized holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the American continents. But, I guess “Three Nephites” would have been harder to teach in a missionary discussion than “John and Peter, James, and John” are.

This is from Curtis Porritt’s PDF article on Priesthood Power that he linked to here on this site:

“Brother Nibley’s remarks clearly point to Alma’s lineage in regard to his priesthood authority. Alma was a descendant of Nephi, who was a descendant of Lehi, who, evidently was a descendant of Melchizedek. Because of this lineage, Alma already had the priesthood when he began to baptize and when he started the church of God.

The same seems to be true for Joseph Smith. Apparently he and his family already had the priesthood they needed when they began to restore the gospel, baptize, and organize the church of God in these latter days. They received the priesthood in the same manner as Alma – from their lineage. Joseph Smith and his family were pure Ephraimites…”

Could this explain why John’s ordination and the baptism of Oliver and Joseph seem so unorthodox?

Many were baptized prior to there even being an organized faith to be baptized into. Consequently those people were re-baptized into the after it was organized. I think it is fair to assume that there is an order to restoration, and there is an order to its continued operation. Just because they are not identical doesn’t mean they are not authorized by God. They both have an order.

For the record, I am not huge fan of even joking about one of the Lord’s anointed, in this case John the Baptist, being high.

So much thinking has gone into this ridicules idea only to jump the “deep thinking” shark at the end with trying to fit scripture into your idea without any actual understanding.

Here’s a simple thought for you, maybe he was to overthrow that particular government because it was wicked. Just because that government was wicked doesn’t mean all governments are wicked? The case could be made that if it is not of God it is wicked but by that same logic everything is wicked including anarchy. Therefore man has to chose between what we think best.

Now I’m questioning myself though, why would I even respond to such a ridicules posting with no thought other then to twist scripture to agree with a ridicules forum of governance, or lack there of as the case may be?

One last thought. I love that every “anarchist” I have ever meet would be the first to die if anarchy ever broke out. Typically they are weak willed spoiled rich kids that need something to latch on to other then real achievement because they feel they are owed everything in life. when they wake up and realize that they have to actually work for what they get and earn they become “disenchanted” and seek to write the worlds wrongs when in fact its just them that need a reality check.